Hi Bob Thanks very much for taking the time to reply in such detail. I can undertand your reluctance to go over ground that was clearly covered in some detail some time ago (before I got involved with MLO).
I would be very interested to know if one of the sliders does not apply a recursive boost because this is what I want (desparately). What is frustrating for me is that when I have posted previously on this topic nobody has been able to explain the reasoning behing the recursive boost - why from a project planning/business point of view, lower level leaf tasks in a hierarchical structure should be made more important than other leaf tasks that appear higher up in the hierarchy? ie: Going back to my example: > > > > Project A > > > > Task 1 > > > > Task 2 > > > > Task 3 > > > > Task 4 why should Tasks 3 and 4 be made more important than Task 1 when I boost Project A? I agree that there are lots of different ways of exploiting the algorithm but there does not appear to be a way of handling my simple requirement which is <<When I boost a top level task, I want all the subtasks to receive the same level of boost irrespective of their depth in the hierarchy below that higher level task. ie: they retain their relatively levels of importance/urgency>> This does not seem an unreasonable request. Incidentally, I am pretty certain that the hierarchical scoring method does meet this requirement. If you can throw any more light on this, I would be very grateful. Many thanks. Richard On Jul 15, 10:15 pm, ratz <[email protected]> wrote: > Honestly.....I'd have to go look again; I really haven't thought about > urgency in a long time. I believe after thinking about it that > importance is recursive and urgency is not but I will check an make a > authoritative statement. later. ( I was working in a different part of > the algorithm that runs in parrallel so I didn't have to concern > myself with thinking about the urgency topic) > > I will say that it's highly unlikely we'll change the way urgency > works because it does what it was suppose to do and and people expect > it to do what it does now. So don't spend a ton of time formulating an > argument; we've been through that 4 years ago. > > Fixing the weekly goal is the only real topic open for discussion. > I'll review urgency only so much as finding the right way to fix the > weekly goal issue my above thoughts were open thinking on the fly that > doesn't mean they are the correct solution; just me thinking out loud; > only so much as the weekly goal issue is concerned and sometimes I > draw bad ideas when doing that; we sort through that when I try and > implement them. > > Completely separate from thoughts of the weekly goal > > If urgency as implemented isn't to your liking you have several > options: > > 1) Don't use the urgency slider > 2) Set the preference to by importance only > 3) Use the hierarchal priority method > > That should suffice for anyone's needs; the program has got so many > different ways to tweak the priority that it is silly. And this this > program has too many options already and we can't bend the algorithms > to everyone's whims or the program would be unfathomable to new users. > > The additive approach your suggesting really isn't' in the cards for > the design.; that's what the weekly goal was suppose to do and it > doesn't work because it's really really hard to track it down the tree > as you recurse. lots of stack space and speed issues and plenty of > places to make mistakes; and it confuses people... really trust me it > does; the last time we went over this everyone had trouble keeping the > additive and multiplicative properties straight during the discussion > and much arguing and crying occurred. > > I go off to think about it some more. maybe something simple and > elegant will occur to me ... no promises. > > On Jul 15, 3:22 pm, "Richard Collings" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Bob > > > Thanks for the detailed reply. I have a question and then an observation > > re: > > > > The weekly goal was an option carried over from the > > > Hierarchal Method; that just got grafted into the CSA. > > > > It simply affects Urgency; and it's from before the urgency > > > slider was added. It was a way to make something urgent. > > > It's going to be very sensitive to outline depth. It was > > > designed to drive things deep in the outline to the top and > > > it's a very old feature. > > > Does this mean that boosting the Urgency of a top level task will also > > generate a depth related boost down the tree below that task - ie that the > > urgency boost of the top level task is applied recursively down the tree > > (once to the top level task, twice to its children, three times to their > > children and so on). > > > If so, then this just doesn't work for me. Taking my example again: > > > > > Project A > > > > Task 1 > > > > Task 2 > > > > Task 3 > > > > Task 4 > > > If I boost the urgency of A, I would like Tasks 1, 3 and 4 to all receive > > the same boost and not to suddenly find that Tasks 3 and 4 appear above Task > > 1. I just cannot see the logic of this - all I have said is that A is now > > more urgent. Why should Tasks 3 and 4 then suddenly become more important > > than Task 1? > > > If this recursive boosting is the case, then I would make a strong plea for > > this behaviour to be made optional - ie: to have 'Switch off recursive > > boosting' (or similar) which when ticked will result in the boost just being > > applied once to the Task in question and to all the children and their > > children, etc. > > > Many thanks > > > Richard- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MyLifeOrganized" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/myLifeOrganized?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
